Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jun 23, 2009 9:29am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Demand on Boxer re Weir

the band was A political only in the sense of the revolutionary crap at the time. They were always up for a benefit or cause they supported. They were certainly more inclined to work within the system or go it alone rather than tear it down imo.

This whole what would Jerry do thing gets old. The dude didn't get involved with much - including his kids. Hell he didn't even get involved with the band when he was really strung out. But do you really think he wouldn't have participated in the whole Obama thing, especially after the previous 8 years? He went to the white house when Gore invited them. He shook Strom Thurmond's hand of all people did he not?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Dudley Dead Date: Jun 23, 2009 1:46pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Demand on Boxer re Weir

You know, maybe "the past 8 years," would have moved Garcia to support the Obama thing . I suspect he would have liked him and disliked George W. , but would he do fundraisers for the local Dems ? Who knows?. Sorry for the "what would Jerry do ?" line of thought . It is one thing and visit the While House, shake some hands ,... but they seem a little TOO comfortable with "the powers to be" these days, to me at least .
I tend to be more conservative, than most of my friends, and I have noticed that "the past 8 years" has angered them to the point of not being able to discuss politics etc as easy as we could have before . To me , it seems that ,Weir, and Hart especially, have been caught up in this sort of thing . It used to be the Grateful Dead experience was a neutral ground , now I feel funny sending in money to people who are aggressively supporting people and things I don't . ( But Istill do, the music is THE THING). Hell , liberals like the Grateful Dead, but conservatives NEED the Grateful Dead !
Hard to want to kill someone while listening to Dark Star !

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jun 23, 2009 5:25pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Demand on Boxer re Weir

" It used to be the Grateful Dead experience was a neutral ground , now I feel funny sending in money to people who are aggressively supporting people and things I don't "

That's got to be a bum trip knowing that every good artist IS a liberal. That's just how it is by nature.

What do these labels even mean anymore? Liberal used to mean open minded and tolerent not the intolerance to other peoples views that it is associated with now. Conservative used to mean ( or claim to mean )less Government in peoples lives not less government to make people less safe and corporations more rich ( like it obviously has been for a long time now ), and how in the hell can you be for less government but want more government in people personal lives?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Dudley Dead Date: Jun 23, 2009 7:01pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Demand on Boxer re Weir

You are correct on both counts ! Most artists through history, have been "liberal", they may not know how translate their vision into reality , but lots of things conservatives like , come from them .
Yes , there are some rather odd contradictions in current liberal/conservative stances . To me I take from both sides . I always liked the Dead's deal of funding grassroots charities . Liberal idea: take care of homeless, and the poor ; Conservative idea: eliminate bureaucracy ( by going straight to the "grassroots people" ); end result: people fed , etc., in a way that gets aid to the people who need it .
And about it being a "burn," (laughing) yes it is, but not too bad !


Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)